This week we’ll introduce a new candidate, a forerunner who despite is late appearance has still many demagogic tools in his arsenal.

You know, the one that calls himself classical liberal but refuses to acknowledge the main principle of classical liberalism : the right of a civilization to govern itself.

While I have no doubt that Gary Johnson would be a perfectly good “liberal” candidate, as in left-wing socialist hippie, I have a hard time seeing him as a classical liberal of any form.

I don’t know what is a bigger spoliation than to refuse to a nation the right to govern itself.
I don’t know what is a bigger violation of private property than to allow invasions for foreign countries, and even encourage them (we are talking about the man who wants amnesty for all illegals).

It’s funny that when the US Army intervenes in Afghanistan or Syria, the globalist media is always whining about “invasions”, “unconstitutional wars”, and so forth. But they always fail to show the REAL invasion going on : illegal immigration.

But the global agenda will never allow a serious candidate for president of the United States, as their goal is that we become a mediocre country lacking our own culture, destroyed by 60 years of ethnomasochism, and being controlled and occupied by foreign interests.

I strongly criticize Gary Johnson’s views on immigration, but you would think that as a so-called “libertarian” he would at least have a decent economic program right ?

Bullshit, his economic plan is probably the weakest of any candidate (even behind Obama).

Abolish tariffs ? Seriously ? So how are you going to get any state income ? Tax labor ? capital gains ? VAT ?

How can you call yourself libertarian and want to tax labor ? As a matter of fact, how can you be in the twenty-first century and want to tax labor ?

He always brags about how he balanced the budget as governor (what more or less every republican governor has ever done), but it’s quite easy to do so if you’re going to tax capital, labor and consumption.

The real question to ask yourself is : what will be our economic situation in ten years, once every company will have moved offshore ?

High tariffs are an incentive for a company to move somewhere, as well as low labor/capital taxes. Gary Johnson wants the opposite for our country, the opposite of what has always worked, the opposite of what is working RIGHT NOW for the top exporters in the world and those who at least have a positive trade balance.

Will it work for the USA ? Has it ever worked for anyone who has applied it ? No.
Does it buy votes ? Does it seems serious to the uneducated masses ? Apparently.

I don’t know what’s the worst in all this : that an ignorant like Gary Johnson would become a presidential candidate, or that some people take him seriously.

It’s very funny to follow the official and orchestrated globalist media propaganda, not only funny because of the content they display but especially for the reactions to the politically orchestrated media campaigns.

You may have heard my criticize either the stimulus, Ron Paul or our current political decisions involving printing more money and selling or sovereignty to the foreign to pay for our trade deficit… that already benefits the foreign.

Now you may also have heard me state on diverse occasions that I find our current political situation very funny, and you may also have wondered why I allow myself to laugh at such things.
After all, millions of Americans losing their jobs and their homes to pay for foreign banks, foreign lobbies and foreign wars isn’t particularly sophisticated, courteous or refined.

Furthermore, the fact that these same millions of Americans seem to ask for more of the same policies that got them where they are today doesn’t seem very amusing either… at first.

About the FED and why the middle class is shooting itself in the foot

You see, I am a big advocate of personal responsibility and live by the guideline of what you seed you must harvest. Understand now why it annoys me subtly when some Americans decide not only to sell or sovereignty to the foreign, but then decide as a collectivized lobby to blame other Americans. Note that scapegoats are never foreign, as that would be intolerant.

That’s also a reason why I dislike the FED system, collectivist economic systems and socialism altogether, other than because they ruin our economic power and political freedom of course.

Yet these recent months it has been very interesting to notice the assemblies of middle class representatives, amongst various lobbies and politically engaged organizations, call for an “end to the FED”. Whether by FED they mean the “FED system” to which I refer or the actually Federal Reserve Bank I do not know.

But what I do know is that these representatives are not only biting the hand that feeds them, they are also shooting themselves in the foot (both feet actually).

What is funny in this situation, and what these Americans aren’t realizing, is that they are about to get a pretty good taste of what reality and individual responsibility look like, whether they like it or not. Probably not otherwise they wouldn’t have tried to escape these concepts in the first place.

Now all this masquerade of a dignified incompetence mixed with a tumultuous ignorance of even the basic economic concepts couldn’t have been possible without the undesired yet ostentatious participation of our eminent globalist leader : congressman Ron Paul.

Tip : Anytime the word “incompetence” is involved, think of Ron Paul.

It’s particularly ridiculous to see the same middle class that desperately whimpered and sobbed for a system designed to detach them from the reality of the financial market, now chanting openly for the abrogation of this system. Whether they realize or not (obviously not) is that they are about to taste the consequences of fifty years of reality denial.

I don’t know if Ron Paul really believes, as a good demagogue, that he can please as much people by repealing the FED system (if he’s even going to do so when elected) or if it’s just another electoral maneuver to rally the masses under a meaningless slogan.
Now I speak of Ron Paul because he is the only one that proposes to repeal this system, and I give him props for that (not too much though cause he’s still an idiot), but whether the middle class wants it or not (surprisingly they do), the FED system will have to end. Only the more Americans wait the harder they will get f*cked.

I really don’t know why those Americans, the ones that profited of the unrealistic and artificial monetary system not the hardworking patriots, would want it to end. They probably believe it will be the same as before, only they don’t have to pay taxes anymore (“yeeeeeah” stupid Californian-suburb accent).

Well unfortunately for them, and fortunately for the rest of the economy, that won’t be the case.

The same way you don’t step out of fifty years of collective irresponsibility, international socialism and ethnomasochism without consequences, you don’t step out of an artificial monetary system the same way either.

What they don’t realize is that the FED is helping these OWS hippies to the expense of the workers, the bosses, the companies and every other wealth creator. They think that someone they’re going to fuck over the “banks” with that ? Don’t worry that banks know how to capitalize their assets whether the dollar goes up or down.

What the end of the FED system really means, is that Americans will no longer be dependent of the FED and the government, but the global economic system. And when we see how little these Americans know about it, we have good reasons to be scared. Or amused.

The end of the FED system will mark the end of artificially pumped jobs : workers will start to be remunerated not by government imposed standard but by market standards. In other words, how useful they are to the overall economy. There will be no more teaching applied art history in a public school for 5K/month. It will also be likely that we see many restructuring plans within American companies.

The end of the FED system will also mark the end of the buying stuff you can’t afford. Notably our record high trade deficit. The government is always bragging about how the continuous stimulus was designed to help the banks and the different industries. That couldn’t be farther from the truth seeing how fast the money we print ends up out of our borders. The government is actually doing more harm than good to these industries by allowing the FED system to pursue.

The end of the FED system will also mark the end of the American business model. The laws of supply = demand will finally be respected, and our trade balance will at least have to be brought up to equilibrium.

Americans will have to stop relying on governmental intervention, stimulus, borrowed money, printed money, taxed money, artificial monetary systems and start producing their own goods. The globalist system will have to be progressively revoked since incompatible with economic reality.

Americans will have to adapt or die. And currently seeing how most hippies are only concerned with gay rights, peace, marijuana decriminalization, tolerance or ecology, it will be very funny trying to see them adapt to a new system, completely incompatible with the globalist propaganda they were encourage to plebiscite : economic reality.

What is really quite amusing is that for once, there will be no scrapegoats. The middle class will be hit hard (and repeatedly) with the very own rod they’ve been building for fifty years, fifty years of foreign dependance, de-localization of our production facilities, collective irresponsibility and ethnomasochism. There will be no excuses this time, economic reality doesn’t allow excuses anyway. No banks to blame, no government to accuse, no rich class to denounce.

I have but one recommendation for these Americans : nationalism.

Nationalism is the only constant in the factors that contributes to a successful nation. Some are more or less liberal, more or less governmental dependent, more or less socialist ; some have devalued currencies, some have healthcare, but the one constant is that they are nationalist.

Ron Paul is no better than Obama really, they’re both two politicians disconnected from the reality of the market, both of them promoting a dead ideology. The only props Ron Paul can have are for his minimal economic experience and the fact that he hasn’t been elected yet, so there’s not much to hold against him.

But don’t be fooled, there’s a reason why Ron Paul is so popular amongst our enemies : he is a demagogue, an internationalist and a delusional moralist. He always bases his judgement on how things should or should not be, never on what they are. He presents free trade and free market as the new magic pill, yet no successful country has really applied any part of his program.
The real successful countries, notably those who have a very high positive trade balance, are usually those who have strong governmental regulations to protect their market. And they are all nationalists, that’s what allows them to lend us their money. Which is actually our money they retrieved from their trade surplus.

American nationalists don’t believe in socialism and regulation, no more than they believe in free trade globalist delusions.

It’s funny to note how both the communist and the new wave of pro-European globalist share very similar views on most subjects. For instance, they both follow blindly the work of so-called economists that had very little real market experience (Marx for the Red, Hayek, Bastiat, Von Mises for the Blue). They’re also both eager to openly designate scrapegoats, the “invisible enemy” against whom we must all unite for the “greater good” even beyond American interests. And finally, they’re both also eager declare themselves outsiders, anti-system or anti-establishment.

Recently in our political debates, many conservative candidates have expressed views about a more open market, a free market if you will. Now free market doesn’t have to mean mere submission to the globalization of our economies as Ron Paul suggests, some markets can be very restricted yet very open to globalization (or even globalism) as California shows us.

Free market means a more open economy inside our borders, less governmental restrictions on businesses and business creation. Now as favorable as I am to this idea, our politicians and other leaders have now managed to turn what was once a genuinely good idea to a new masquerade of demagogy.

Politicians, and especially Ron Paul, seem not only to see free market as the new magic pill, but even as the only economic proposition. Free market is neither the new magic pill, there shouldn’t be any magic pills, neither should it be the only proposition of any decent candidate.

He seems to think that by allowing free market all the problems we face will be solved… well first of all that would imply that all are problems are economic, not political or ideological for example.

And secondly, where are all the other top free market countries in the world ? Once again, Ron Paul and the other liberal suckers are very good at scaffolding demagogic speeches, but as always they don’t translate in reality.

The two biggest exporters in the world, China and Germany, are also those who have some of the least free markets. The United States actually aren’t bad at all in terms of free market, ranking 6th on the 2011 economic freedom index. Germany is 25th and China 132th. Yet, we have the worst trade balance in the world, ranking 198th on… 198 countries. Note that the difference between the USA’s trade balance and the 197th is bigger than the difference between the 1rst and the 197th. If you have any experienced in statistics, you shall notice how fucked up that is.

But don’t forget that trade deficit is only the tip of the iceberg, the real consequences lie behind it : printing, taxing or borrowing money, reliance on foreign investments…

The top five countries with the best trade balance also have the least free markets : China, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Japan, Russia (source: CIA world factbook).

Not only that, but most of the successful countries also have a lot of governmental involvement : over 50% of GDP for France, Belgium, Denmark, Russia. How can Ron Paul still advocate free market as the ultimate solution, the magic pill ?

Sure free market is beneficial, I’m not saying otherwise. But it all comes down to supply and demand, and there’s a very (very) simple equation that both Ron Paul and Marx seem to ignore : supply = demand. No more, no less.

How can there be a supply when all our goods or produced by foreigners in foreign countries ? How can there be a demand when our economy, like our politicians, is completely disconnected from the reality of the market by countless stimulus plans that involve printing, borrowing or relying on foreign investments ?

Free market and economic liberty are both stimulating factors for an economy, but under no condition should they be considered as “magic pills”. If the candidates believed in real liberalism (individual responsibility), they’d drop the magic pill speech altogether and leave that for Obama. But the truth is that neither Ron Paul nor any other candidate is any better than Obama to answer our current economic issue. As a matter of fact, most of our politicians don’t even want to answer them.

Many of the mass media operatives and anti-American propagandists are once more desperately trying to bring Ron Paul back into the public debate and the media eye, somehow by alleging him as the new liberal “revolution” and anti-establishment candidate.

Passing on the fact that he is as anti-establishment as Arthur Ruppin was anti-Zionist and that most of his proposals are just rehearsals of previous internationalist and globalist political beliefs coupled with even more ethnomasochism, there is at least some truth to the media propaganda for once : Ron Paul is liberal. Liberal as in real liberal, not left-wing progressive. I intentionally avoid the label classical liberal.

Now if the media for once got their facts right, they are of course completely wrong in their analysis of these facts.

Many representatives will say that Ron Paul popularized, or re-popularized, liberalism. Some will even go so far as to say that Ron Paul is popular because of his liberal views.

But I assure you, if Ron Paul manages to combine popularity in the globalist media and liberal views, there is no causality involved at all. I would go so far as to say that not only Ron Paul is not popular because of his liberal views, but rather popular despite his liberal inclinations.

Notice that those that support Ron Paul, that is to say every internationalist media to an extend, doesn’t do so because Ron Paul opposes public spending, governmental regulations and Keynesianism, but rather because he is seen as an objector to what they call “American imperialism”.

Ron Paul isn’t that much more economically liberal than Newt Gingrich or Ronald Reagan, but the reason he gets support from the anti-American media is simply because he has a very globalist and demagogic message : peace.

Furthermore, Ron Paul also has support for opposing the government, which is the new scapegoat of 2012. And by opposing I mean deluding himself and blaming everything on. But what he forgets is that liberalism isn’t particularly anti-government at all.

Liberalism doesn’t have to mean a limited government, rather an efficient government.

The media are dead wrong to believe that liberalism has rejuvenated. Liberalism means individual responsibility, and ethnomasochism is far from individual responsibility.
The more the American people strive for globalism, foreignism and anti-Americanism, the more they will be drawn to socialism regardless. If liberalism is a little more popular now than it used to be, it’s simply the result of the Bush/Obama fiasco.

But don’t delude yourself into believing that liberalism is back on the political agenda and that the United States citizens will suddenly change their political and ideological views. Nowadays Americans, if we can even call them Americans, are far too attached to the socialist values that gave birth to internationalism and ethnomasochism in the first place : collective irresponsibility, group think and sheep mentality.

Just when you thought that the so-called liberals and their supporters ought to shut up, here they are trying to get attention and occupy wall street the media scene with the same old joke : the 9/11 conspiracy.

One could wonder why this event, which happened over ten years ago, still holds such an importance as of today but regardless.

It seems like the ethnomasochist wave generally accompanying Ron Paul’s campaigns has payed off and carried on to other candidates.

But seriously now, we really are lucky to have such insightful people to govern us.

C’mon of course it’s a conspiracy… the foreign attacking us ? The foreign hating America ? Impossible. That just doesn’t fit the ethnomasochist propaganda promoted by the mass media.

It can’t be the foreign, it just has to bey Americans. PHEW ! We were lucky, for a little while we were about to admit that foreigners could cause harm to the USA… unimaginable ! And utterly intolerant.

It’s also quite funny to notice that these conspiracy theories only arise when the United States of America are implied.

Why are the no conspiracy theories for the Holocaust for example ? For the Armenian genocide ? For Fukushima ?

Surely many Americans are the biggest sheep in the world, and even more surely these same Americans will pay the price for this naivety in a very near future. Unfortunately, many not-so-sheep Americans will also have to pay the same price. That’s the beauty of collective irresponsibility.

I don’t know if you watched Ron Paul’s speech to a Town Hall meeting in Maryland, but it’s very revealing concerning his ambitions as a president.
A very interesting segment was when he said that we should all unite under our love for liberty and forget communities and differences. Replace liberty with equality and you have the exact same speech as Lenin. Anationalism in other words.

It’s funny how the globalists are always demanding for sacrifices in the name of a “greater good”, such as globalism, freedom. But what they won’t tell you and Americans won’t seem to realize is that it’s always the same that are performing these sacrifices (Americans) and the same that are on the receiving end (the foreign).

You don’t see such speeches in the European elections for example. No candidate would dare put a “greater good” above national interests. But Americans don’t seem to notice anything happening outside their borders.

You may see a lot of foreign support for Ron Paul as I previously evoked on this blog, but does that mean they like his ideas ? Or just that they want him in the White House ?

Notice that far from being ashamed of this foreign support, Ron Paul actually praises it on any possible occasion. It seems he accords even more value to foreign support than national support, which says long about a candidate to the United States presidency.

If Americans weren’t so much following the sheep mentality and mindless group-think they’d start to look a little closer at the foreign governments, and start to notice some incoherence.

For example, just look at how much support Ron Paul received from France or Russia. But who are their presidents ? Libertarians or nationalists ? This applies for any other country in the world, India, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic.

Look at the polls, look at their candidates, look at their senates, look at their propositions, look at their political programs ? Do they even have a libertarian candidate ? In most cases no, and if they do it’s far from being the globalist ethnomasochist hippie-fest that Ron Paul promulgates, and a lot closer to nationalism coupled with classical liberalism.

If Americans weren’t such sheep, they’d notice that far from wanting more libertarianism for their countries, they just want Ron Paul elected as president of the United States.

But unfortunately, Americans are sheep and will suffer the consequences. Too bad. But kinda funny at the same time.
Be prepared for more OWS crap in the near future, and don’t forget the popcorn (one of the rare vestige of American gastronomy that has survived decades of global imperialism and ethnomasochism).

It’s a notorious fact that Ron Paul, along with all the other pro-peace supporters, live in their fantasy.

Not only is “pro-peace” a totally irresponsible and globalist view, I could only imagine the reactions the Europeans would have if one of their candidates labelled themselves “pro-peace”, but it’s also very stupid.

And once again… these statements are backed by no data, or any real proof whatsoever excluding the so-called blowback.

First off, if his ideas were true, than military intervention would have preceded terrorist attacks. That not being the case, this alone should infirm his statements.

Secondly, military skids are more common in the Russian army, in the French army, and in most of NATO’s forces than in the US Army. As a matter of fact, the US Army is the most and only military force to be a minimum transparent. Why isn’t there any blowback against these forces ?

Thirdly, the Muslim terrorists claim than above being anti-American, they are “Muslim extremists”. But if that was really the case, shouldn’t they be pro-American rather than anti-American knowing that the USA is the most open country to Islam of all non-Muslim States ? We allow full veil (burqa), religious signs, the construction of minarets and we actually condemn religious offense, which is not the case in most European countries for example. Moreover, and still unlike most European countries, we don’t have any nationalist or anti-Islam political party. We don’t have any congress or white house representatives that pride themselves in Muslim and Arab torture during the wars either, unlike the European Union.

Point four, where is the blowback against Germany for the Wehrmacht war crimes ? Where is the blowback against the Red Army ? Against the Chinese Army ? Surely, they have more war crimes to their actives than the US Army.

Lastly, saying that military intervention causes blowback is a massive oversimplification at best, and a blatant attempt at obscurantism at worst.
It’s like saying that all delinquents were previously victims of delinquency, all rapists were previously rape victims, all criminals were previously crime victims (all killers victims of kill ?).

Ron Paul is denying the whole predator/prey concept, as a matter of fact he is even denying the food chain. He is saying that if a chicken never eats foxes, when he crosses the road of a fox he will go unharmed.

Think of it this way, was there more disobedience in a concentration camp in 44 or in a rehab clinic nowadays ? If you can answer this question correctly, you are probably smarter than Ron Paul. Or less delusional.

War is not a catalyst for anti-Americanism, anti-Americanism (and especially ethnomasochism from our leaders) is a catalyst for anti-Americanism.

Ron Paul, may be the best “pro-peace”, “anti-government”, “anti-war” candidate. But for sure he is far from being a “pro-reality” candidate.

Earlier this week I was seriously considering voting Ron Paul for the next presidential elections, as I stated in my last post The 2012 Demagogic Elections.

It made sense to me to vote for him because since every candidate had the same political and economical views, I might as well vote for the one that was least likely to break my balls with government intervention.

Yet after thoughtful consideration, I won’t vote for him or any other candidate this year.

Even to prevent Obama from gaining a second term mandate, I really don’t see myself signing an adhesion charter to his values.
Maybe if there was another Tea Party candidate presenting himself could I, at a pinch, hold out my ballot, but for me Ron Paul is one of the most despicable politicians.

As much as I hate Santorum and Obama for their efforts to destroy what is left of American culture, at least they have a bit of integrity and at least will they go against the public opinion once in a while.
But Ron Paul no, never will he challenge the global opinion, nether will he risk his popularity, acquired less by his political skills than his inherent tendency to voice political correctness.

Always siding with the majority, with the public opinion, with the political correctness : the 99%, the foreign, the anti-SOPA, the anti-NDAA, the anti-racists…

How can a candidate call for change when he refuses to see the real problems ? Worse than the blind are those who refuse to see, remember.

How can he challenge the system when he is always looking for scapegoats for every American issue ? Note that he will always attack very little consortia, to be sure that they won’t defend themselves.
Example : the banksters (who do you know that’s a “bankster” ?), the corporations, Wall Street (when was the last time you saw a Wall Street representative on the media ?).

But he would never, for example, assault the ecological lobby which is clearly anti-American, yet receives wide support in our own nation.

Some would argue that a flu is far less inconvenient than plague or cholera, but don’t forget that in modern days a flu kills more than plague or cholera combined.

And honestly, I couldn’t vote for a candidate that :

Voiced his support to anti-American lobbies and political organizations in 2008 (Green Party)

Bases his economical program on his ideals and opinions, rather than on factual evidence and reality

Denied that Iraq’s regime was similar to the third Reich on his debate against McCain. He clearly never read the Iraqi Civil and Criminal codes, which share many similarities with the ones under the Hitler’s regime. But does he only read Arabic ? Or German ?

Uses obscurantism and massive oversimplifications when talking about the Fed, and economics in general.

Never backs up his propositions with data, and trait he shares with the liberals.

Ron Paul is either hypocritical or ignorant, and in both cases those are not qualities I would like to see in a president of the United States.

About every four years a very particular and intriguing event is held somewhere in the United States of America Demagogy, and many signs show that this year’s event will be at least as lame as every other year.

Similarly to how other countries elect representatives to govern them and act in their best interest, we in the United States of America Demagogy elect notorious globalists and demagogues to govern us, and act against our national interest.

You would be thinking that with the economic crisis that touches our country more then any other, with nationalist movements rising more than ever in Europe and every other country, with the disastrous results of half a decade of ethnomasochism and globalism, Americans would start to wake up and demand that their government start working in the national interest.

But apparently Americans are more concerned with gay rights, birth control pills and the legalization of marijuana.

These same Americans don’t seem to notice that they will soon experience a very painful blowback to use Ron Paul’s favorite term, once the Fed stops printing money. The errors of half a decade of ethnomasochistic governing and foreignism won’t be repaired with yet another bailout, and the consequences that Americans are starting to see are only the tip of the iceberg.

It was pretty funny last year to watch the Occupy Wall Street movement, yet another blatant excuse for anti-Americanism promoted by our ethnomasochistic media, because of the wide ignorance of the protesters.

Not only were they proposing even more international socialism to resolve problems created by international socialism, but really if they think our economic situation now is difficult, wait and see how it will be when the Europeans or the Russian take us over.

And no, there won’t be a massive bailout to magically solve our decades of trade-deficit, debt accumulation and other consequences to our anti-American globalist actions.

Even Ron Paul’s policies to cut government spending are widely insufficient at best, on the wrong track at worst.
As much as we need government spending’s limited, that alone won’t solve most of our problems. Germany, China, India, Denmark, France, Sweden Russia and most of the globe all have economies that are a lot more government depended than us (59% of GDP for Denmark, 56% for France) and their economy is in better shape than ours.

In 2008, we had to choose between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea, but trust me in 2012 we will have both.

As long as American interests aren’t the top and only priority of the voters, you might as well keep Obama and his current administration because no candidate is projecting much change in our ideology.

And apparently, seeing the possible candidates for the 2012 elections, the public opinion hasn’t evolved one bit despite the economic crisis of 2012.

As for me, once again I will not vote for anyone.

I was considered voting Ron Paul earlier this year but seriously it’s not even worth the effort, and I wouldn’t want to encourage the globalist system with my vote.

As long as we won’t have American elections, based on American interests and not demagogy, voting will be as useless here as in central Africa.